Thurber's Thoughts is back!

photo via Wikia.com

First, please accept my apologies for being gone from regular blog posts for so long.

While writing for Ohio Watchdog, I channeled much of my "thoughts" into those articles. When that assignment concluded at the end of 2015, I decided to take a break. However, I accepted work on another project that had absolutely nothing to do with politics.

That commitment prevented me from devoting time to my blog, but that is also concluded so...

I'm back.

And boy is there a lot to say.

We can start with everyone's favorite complaint:  potholes and the state of Toledo's roads.

For over a decade, I've been warning anyone who would listen that transferring money out of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) fund and into the General Fund to pay for every day expenses was a bad idea.

Eventually, I explained, we'd run out of money in the CIP and wouldn't have anything left for capital items - like roads and other expenses with a life of five years or more.

Wouldn't you know it, I was right and that mess erupted in the first part of the year when Mayor Paula Hicks-Hudson and Toledo City Council decided to ask voters to approve an increase in the payroll income tax.

Fortunately, that measure went down to defeat - resoundingly.

But it hasn't solved the problem that the city doesn't have enough money for capital items because they've raided more than $110 million out of the CIP fund.

And it's not just this mayor. Every "strong" mayor had a hand in creating the problem: spending more than what they took in and spending money on non-essential items.

Want to know just how ridiculous things got?

In February 2012, Toledo City Council *discovered* they had about $1 million more in revenue than they budgeted. But they were planning to transfer nearly $12 million out of the CIP to balance the budget. So instead of reducing the amount of the transfer to $11 million, they decided to spend that $1 million extra instead.

And what did they spend it on? A new filing system for city council and a temporary employee; additional funds for demolition of houses; additional inspectors in code enforcement, even though the department said it didn't need any; an executive director to run the previously discontinued Toledo Youth Commission; and a consultant to create an Historic Preservation Plan.

The irresponsible spending continues while former Council finance committee chairman and current City Treasurer George Sarantou, Toledo City Council and the mayor try to find a way to come up with more income rather than find a way to cut spending.

You see, there's no where else they can cut.

(At least, that's the story.)

So that's how we started the year and now we're looking at a sweetheart deal for Promedica, the city and the Metroparks.

Prime waterfront property on the East Side across from The Docks has been sitting undeveloped for decades.  Various developers have come and gone and finally, Dashing Pacific Group bought it.

Their plan was to develop it with shops and housing and take advantage of the wonderful waterfront and the new road and light posts the city installed to help with development.  But they haven't done anything on it yet and the city had a clause in the sale that said it could buy back the property after five years.

And it should tell you something about Toledo when all the developers who've had a chance at this have failed to actually *develop* prime waterfront property.

We must be the only city in the entire country that can't make a go of prime waterfront property.

But back to the sweetheart deal...

The city really doesn't have the cash to buy back the property, so Promedica has agreed to purchase the property from Dashing Pacific.  They will hold it for a bit and then sell it (for the purchase price) to the Metroparks.

The Metroparks will then make this prime waterfront property a park.

Never mind that the Metroparks has two levies that property owners pay.  In fact, the most recent one in 2012 was a 10-year levy that was supposed to generate funds for developing new parks, maintaining existing ones and preventing budget cuts. How much do you want to bet that they'll need another increase when they purchase about 100 more acres and then want to make this prime waterfront property into a park area?

Something about this isn't quite right. Why does Promedica want to purchase the land only to sell it to the Metroparks?

Can't Dashing Pacific sell it to the Metroparks without a go-between?

If the city has the ability to buy back the land, why don't they do so, especially if they've got a willing buyer in the Metroparks?

Are there some restrictions with the funding sources used to clean up the property and install roads and street lamps that prevents it from going directly to another governmental entity like the Metroparks?

Inquiring minds....

And then there is the Southwyck property.  The mall sat unused for - well, no one really remembers how long because it was such a long time.  The city finally got the property from the owner, tore down the buildings and decided to market it as an open area for development.

Oh - and they borrowed money to do the demolition.

Now there is a buyer but the city is looking at a loss on the project. As one city councilman said - they didn't buy the land in order to make a profit...

But here's the thing.  They still have a loan and, according to various media reports, they (or rather you and I) are paying about $70,000 in interest every year on that loan.

So the city is going to pay off the loan with the income from the sale, right?

No - this is Toledo, so wrong!

The city isn't planning on paying off the loan but putting the money into the CIP fund. So you and I and every other taxpayer is going to continue to pay about $70,000 in interest so the city can spend that income elsewhere.

If you're wondering what they're thinking at city hall, see above story about the 2012 budget.

Sadly, this is par for the course.

So that's the start. Coming up I'll take a look at the absolutely insane Toledo ordinance that forces any company doing business with the city to have a union contract - even if they're a non-union company. Talk about forced unionization!  Here I thought it was the union's job to organize but Toledo's Project Labor Agreement ordinance actually puts the city at the bargaining table with project bidders and forces them to adopt a union contract.

That'll be a long post so I'll save it for Monday.

Union derangement syndrome

Warning: this post and the linked article contain potentially offensive language and terms.

I have no other way to describe the warped thinking evident in this missive than to call it 'union derangement syndrome.'

You may have heard part of this article in the June newsletter of the Northwest Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council (NWOBCTC) being discussed on both the morning and afternoon shows on WSPD. That's where I first heard of it.

I managed to get a copy and am sharing it here for all to see in its entirety, because I believe it's important for people to know exactly what union leaders are thinking.

The title of the column, "Union haters are ignorant fools" might tell you all you need to know in terms of what officers of unions think of those who aren't in a union. But, as I've said recently in other posts, when you start with an incorrect premise, you draw an incorrect conclusion.

In this case, the incorrect premise is that those who want to rein in the unsustainable public union compensation packages must 'hate' unions. Further, as the article makes clear, they have to be fools if they don't agree completely with the union agenda.

But the article itself is dripping with 'hate' and derision toward people who see a problem and are trying to fix it. How else do you explain the use of the word "tea-bagger" - a sexually-explicit and intentionally derogatory term opponents (and even the media) have called members of the tea-party movement?

"Governors and Mayors, bankers and developers, Tea-Baggers and their conservative mouth-pieces are blaming unions for our economic woes. They complain about how much money union workers make and how opulent our benefits are while they give themselves and their pals pay raises and bonuses. Simultaneously, they introduce reckless anti-union bills in the name of budget balancing, while in reality these are nothing but thinly veiled union-busting tactics.

Why else would Senate Bill 5 contain language to the effect that public union members would only have to pay dues voluntarily?"

Let's look at the 'logic' here...

While I don't believe that unions are the sole source of our economic woes - and I haven't heard any elected officials say that is the case - the 'opulent' (his own term) benefits and compensation packages of public sector unions are contributing to the budget problems of the state. I don't blame unions solely for this - I also blame elected officials who, with their symbiotic relationship to the public sector unions, fail to properly represent the taxpayer when it comes to negotiations and voting on contracts.

Both parties are at fault for the situation, but it is unions who are making things worse by this type of rhetoric and incendiary language, refusing to admit that maybe, perhaps, possibly, the 'opulent' (again, his term) compensation they receive has a significant impact on the current financial state.

In fact, unions are doing themselves - and their members - a serious disservice by failing to understand that future public pension and health care obligations are at risk if steps are not taken quickly to address the problem.

Of course, it should be noted that NWOBCTC is not a public sector union, so SB5 doesn't even apply to them.

But other pending Ohio legislation, to raise the threshold for the prevailing wage (PW) provisions and to eliminate Project Labor Agreements (PLAs), would. In case you're not familiar with these, PW laws require state and local governments to pay what is 'determined' (via formula) to be the 'prevailing' wage in the area for government jobs/projects/contracts. This most often turns out to be the union wage as it is traditionally the highest. The law requires bidders on contracts to pay their workers that particular wage, thus ensuring that union companies are not at a disadvantage to non-union companies when bidding.

A project labor agreement is more insidious in that the governmental entity will mandate a union contract with a bidder for the duration of the project bid. In most instances, the government actually negotiates the contract with the union and then imposes the terms upon the company and its workers. The workers - who are not in a union - are then forced to pay union dues and other fees to the union while they are performing the work under the contract with the government.

I opposed PLAs in Lucas County, but the Commissioners instituted them after my term was up. Interestingly, it was the NWOBCTC that pushed the PLAs in Lucas County. (For more on this you can go here, here, here and here.)

Mr. Schlagheck, of course, doesn't want to see these measures passed because he, and his union coffers, directly benefit by using government to force non-union members to pay dues to an organization they have previously refused to join. But his 'logic' on why these two measures shouldn't be instituted boggles the mind:

"Both of these bills have been introduced by Tea-Bagger politicians to "save the budget" even though every study ever done proves PW and PLAs do not drive up costs."

Really? Every study ever done???

A quick Internet search came up with this website which lists multiple studies and findings showing exactly the opposite. In all fairness, I did find a study done by a union-dominated group that said PW doesn't increase costs, and multiple references to that study. But as the unions will claim a bias by those who say otherwise, I cannot help but believe there is a bias toward the union position when a study is done by a group that is dominated by unions.

There are numerous other articles talking about the problems with the federal PW law and why it should be repealed. Apparently, Mr. Schlagheck is not as well-read as he would like to believe.

As for PLAs, there's actually an entire website dedicated to the sinister nature of such agreements, www.PLAwatch.com, which has a page of studies proving that PLAs raise costs, diminish bidder participation and reduce competition.

Aside from these studies, common sense tells you that when bidders to public projects are required to pay more than what they'd normally pay, the cost of the project is higher than if the bidder were allowed to pay the lower wage. Nothing could be more simple and even a child understands this concept. Why don't the unions?

One can only conclude that the denial of such basic logic qualifies under the definition of 'deranged.'

But it gets worse:

"Of course, much of this labor bashing rhetoric stems from those hateful morons on conservative talk radio and TV. It appears to me that these idiots and their Tea-Bagger minions unusually have one thing in common. Hate. Among them it is O.K. if you do not even hate the same thing as the next hater, as long as you hate something.

It is hard to believe that a bunch of misfits with so much hate could somehow form an organization. Groucho Marx said, "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." I pointed this out to a Tea-Bagger. Now he hates me for it."

Would Mr. Schlagheck also apply the Groucho Marx 'logic' to his own union membership? If he did, he wouldn't be a union member.

Remember the line from the article quoted above:

"Why else would Senate Bill 5 contain language to the effect that public union members would only have to pay dues voluntarily?"

Why would any union want a member who didn't want to voluntarily support the organization they were a part of by 'voluntarily' paying dues? The contradiction makes me want to wrap duct tape around my head before it explodes.

Despite giving no evidence of 'hate,' the premise continues to be advanced. But what could be more 'hateful' than to call people you disagree with 'morons,' 'Tea-Bagger,' 'minions' or 'misfits'??? Talk about a lack of civility.

As for his friend, I would have loved to know the entire conversation for I can't help but believe the discussion was filled with 'derangement' on the part of Mr. Schlagheck that drove his friend insane. Further, if the individual was a 'friend,' I doubt the feeling is now 'hatred' as much as frustration. This is the usual reaction of a tea party member to the lack of logic, reason and common sense (like this article demonstrates) promoted by many on the union side.

But that's not all.

Apparently, there is some sanity within the union membership ranks - and that cannot be tolerated by the organizations that preach tolerance to others.

"The thing that bothers me the most about this contempt for labor is that we have some of our own members who listen to this crap and believe it. He votes for those who attack us. He thinks we should settle contracts for less to keep the company competitive. He works overtime for straight time. He skips breaks. He back stabs. He hauls materials and tools in his own truck. He complains about union dues. He complains about "the union." He mows the boss's grass and shovels his snow.

He is in general a brown-nosing ass kisser. You all know this guy. Maybe he is you."

Wow - if that's not 'hate,' I don't know what is.

Notice the 'anti-logic' here: 'we shouldn't settle contracts for less so the company which employs us and pays our wages can continue to be competitive and keep us employed.' Does Mr. Schlagheck not realize that if a company fails to be competitive it goes out of business and all his precious union workers will no longer have jobs? And without jobs, where will his wages, derived from the dues of those members, come from????

Derangement is the only term that applies to such thinking - or lack thereof.

And look at how Schlagheck demeans and belittles someone who doesn't go along - sort of like children on a playground - criticizing a person who chooses to work and not take breaks; who - gasp! - uses his own vehicle for hauling materials and tools; who is the lowest of low - a "brown-nosing ass kisser.' How dare he make the rest of us look bad for not going above and beyond.

That's hate - someone who publicly disparages, mocks, sneers at and vilifies another because they disagree. Mr. Schlagheck should look in the mirror.

It is the hypocrisy exhibited in this piece that bothers me most. I can understand someone disagreeing with me about various positions. I can more than hold my own in the debate about whether or not prevailing wage and project labor agreements add to the costs of government thus requiring more from taxpayers. I can agree to disagree with people who, for their own reasons, staunchly believe that unions are the best thing for them.

What I cannot 'tolerate' though is a headline that calls me a 'union hater' and 'ignorant fool' because I disagree and then goes on to display the most hateful attitude and use the most despicable language to describe those of us who have a different opinion.

In this article, the writer shows himself to the be the 'hater' and the 'ignorant fool' - thus earning the distinction of derangement.

Prevailing wage and PLAs eliminated for school construction projects

Press Release from the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law:

OSFC agrees to eliminate Prevailing Wage and Project Labor Agreements for School Construction

Agency will also Review Strickland Era Contracts for Corruption

COLUMBUS - The Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) today agreed to adopt OSFC Resolution 11-16, marking the conclusion of a lawsuit brought by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a public interest law firm representing Ohio taxpayers. The Center argued that OSFC's funding of school projects with Prevailing Wage was unconstitutional, and that the Strickland Administration and labor unions engaged in corrupt activity in procuring, at great taxpayer expense, Prevailing Wage (PW) and Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on school building construction projects around the state.

Under the Resolution, the agency will no longer fund Ohio public school construction projects that implement Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) or Prevailing Wage (PW). The move is expected to save Ohio taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, and level the playing field between union and non-union contractors.

"Project Labor Agreements" require non-union contractors to enroll their own employees as dues-paying members of a local union hall and abide by union work rules for the duration of the project. It is typically infeasible for non-union contractors to bid on projects with PLAs, which results in the elimination of competitive bidding, and drives up the costs of projects.

"Prevailing Wage" is a wage rate that is set based upon the average wage paid to union workers in a particular locality. It is typically well above the market wage rate, and its use reduces competitive bidding and drives up costs on projects.

Richland County taxpayers in Shelby and Madison school districts brought the lawsuit against OSFC, former Governor Ted Strickland, former OSFC Director Richard Murray, and Laborers' International Union of North America. The lawsuit alleged that Strickland and Murray pressured school districts to use union labor, at taxpayer expense, to ensure union donations to Strickland's campaign.

"The adoption of this resolution is a monumental victory for the taxpayers of Ohio, who can expect to save tens of millions of dollars now that they won't be subsidizing inflated union wages on multi-million-dollar school construction projects, and for non-union workers, who can now compete for public contracts on a level playing field," said 1851 Center Director Maurice Thompson. "Ohioans and non-union workers across the state should be very pleased with this outcome, and the Kasich Administration and Attorney General DeWine are commended for their cooperative approach in resolving this matter."

The Resolution OSFC will:

* Prohibit the use of Prevailing Wage on state-funded school projects;
* Prohibit the use of PLAs on state-funded school projects;
* Repeal all of OSFC Resolution 07-98, the Resolution implemented under the Strickland Administration that favored use of PW and PLAs;
* Review existing contracts with PW and PLAs, including those where 1851 has alleged rampant corruption;
* Allow OSFC to rescind PLAs and PW terms on existing school construction projects that OSFC is funding;
* Commit OSFC to the belief that "open contracting for publicly funded construction projects aids in lowering costs of such projects."

The Resolution halts a practice outlined in the 1851 Center's Complaint, whereby local construction unions would ensure the victory of a school district's tax levy campaign to build new schools in exchange for the school district's promise to implement union-friendly PW and PLAs.

"Higher quality schools can now be built for less, and tax levy elections in Ohio will now more accurately reflect taxpayers' wishes, rather than construction union clout," said Thompson.

As a result of the Resolution, the 1851 Center earlier today voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit, Oleksa v. Murray, which was pending in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas.

The Complaint in the case is available here.

More information on the case is available here.

Review new OSFC Resolution 11-16 here.



The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is a non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, voting rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures.

Commissioners approve PLAs while cutting positions

You wouldn't know it from the coverage in the paper, but yesterday the Lucas County Commissioners voted unanimously to increase the costs of all projects they undertake.

They did so by approving a new policy requiring project labor agreements for all construction projects valued at $25,000 or greater. The resolution setting the new policy calls for the county to negotiate an agreement with the Northwest Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council (and/or its affiliates) and for all bidders on county projects to include a provision in the bid requiring the successful bidder - and all their contractors and subcontractors - to adhere to the PLA negotiated by the county for that specific project.

So the county is going to negotiate terms of employment for the companies who win the bids???? Government isn't just dictating such things as minimum wage and safety provisions, now they're actively colluding with unions to force unionization upon their citizens. That's what PLAs do - they require union dues to be paid by workers for the duration of the project. They also traditionally require companies to contribute to union health care and pension funds during the duration of the project, even though the non-union employees of the company will never see any of those funds because they're 'members' of the union only during the project.

But the Commissioners don't stop with just the successful bidder. They apply this forced unionization to every other party the bidder wants to use!

How much extra do you think this is going to cost taxpayers???

At the same meeting where they passed this increased cost, they eliminated six management positions in an effort to balance their budget for next year.

Stuck on stupid? Insanity? Payback to unions? You decide - my head hurts thinking about it.

There are two strange parts about the passage of this policy:

1) the 'statutory authority' cited on the resolution, and

2) the absence of Blade coverage of the action in light of their past position on this very same policy.

The 'statutory authority' citation appears on each resolution presented to the Board of County Commissioners. This came about because as a commissioner I constantly asked where, in the Ohio Revised Code, we had the authority to do many of the things that were being presented to us. I wanted the statutory authority clearly cited on the resolutions.

If the staff or sponsoring commissioner couldn't find any authority in the code, I voted against the resolution. Commissioners and county government are creatures of state statute. Without specific authority to address an issue, they cannot act. This is a long-established legal precedent in Ohio.

The statutory authority reference for this new PLA policy is listed as ORC 305.30. Interestingly, this relatively short section of the ORC details the powers and duties of the county administrator.

I suppose that since they're making the county administrator the person responsible for entering into the labor contract, there is a bit of relevance to the resolution. But they don't address where they have the authority to require a PLA in the first place. They only reference their authority to direct the county administrator, not where the authority to implement a PLA comes from.

This is certainly a stretch. Just because you direct the county administrator to perform a task, it doesn't mean you have the authority to order the task. But if no one is checking, the Commissioners get away with such 'illogic' in their actions.

They do state, in the summary of the resolution, that PLAs are legal under federal and Ohio law, though they give no evidence to support that statement. I guess the commissioners all missed the recent news that the federal government yanked a project in New Hampshire due to problems with the PLA requirement.

Another oddity is the change in the language of the resolution. The first one that was introduced included an actual contract - with the terms of the project labor agreement spelled out in detail. This current approved resolution only has three provisions attached (as you can see in the link to the document). I believe this was done to give the commissioners coverage for actual terms of the agreements - leaving it up to the county administrator to negotiate.

Here's a question for you: how often do you think the final terms of the PLAs will differ from the union-written contract language that was included in the first resolution?

The second issue is the lack of media coverage. This is a huge cost increase to taxpayers and an economic development/business killer. At a time when the county is trying to cut costs to balance their budget and everyone is talking about how we attract businesses to the area, how does this help? It doesn't - but with the main stream media in the area ignoring the issue, most residents are blissfully unaware.

This same proposal to implement PLAs was tried - and failed - in 1996. At the time, the editors called it payback to the unions for their support - and blasted the policy as contrary to a economic development efforts.

(click for larger view)

A search of 'project labor agreement' on the websites of The Blade, the Toledo Free Press and the four television stations showed no articles on the subject. So why no news coverage of an issue that will increase the cost of county construction projects at a time that the county has no money?

Is this a testament of the power of the unions? Or a reflection on the media in the area? I don't know...

But I do know that this is 'not business friendly,' not budget friendly, not taxpayer friendly and an all-around really bad idea.

The question, now, is whether or not, like in 1997, the policy will be repealed. But with the lack of attention to the issue, I expect not.

Lucas County 1996, 2009 PLAs nearly identical

I've received the copy of the 1996 approved Project Labor Agreement resolution passed by the Lucas County Commissioners as well as the 1997 resolution that rescinded the policy.

The first two pages are the resolution which repealed the policy and the remaining pages are the original policy:

1996 Lucas County Project Labor Agreement Policy and 1997 PLA Rescision Interestingly, the 2009 resolution has many clauses that are identical to the 1996 policy that was repealed. You can compare the two documents yourself to see that many of the itemized provisions of the two policies are word-for-word. 2009 Lucas County PLA reso So again, if this was a bad idea that had to be repealed in 1997, why is it a good idea now?????

PLAs already tried - and rejected! - in Lucas County

As it turns out, project labor agreements (PLAs) have already been tried - and rejected - in Lucas County.

In September of 1996, the Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution requiring union contracts for all companies who received a bid for county work above $50,000 - whether they were unionized or not. I've requested a copy of the actual resolution and will share it with you when I receive it.

Apparently, according to an old Blade article (County May Restructure Policy on Construction Bids, April 28, 1997):

The policy was added by hand to the typed agenda prior to a public meeting Sept. 19, when it was adopted by the commissioners.

Even back then, there was an effort to keep this damaging and costly proposal under the radar. I guess nothing has been learned in the intervening years.

But it quickly became a problem when the commissioners rejected bids for new lights at the county recreation center - including the two lowest from non-union contractors.

Unlike today (so far), editors of the paper weighed in with an opinion on the matter:

“It’s a taxpayer-be-damned attitude, and Ms. Isenberg is acting as if she is above criticism.” ~ Lucas County (Toledo) Commissioner Sandy Isenberg and the rest of the County Commission taken to task in an editorial (Union collar a snug fit) for “quietly drafting a new policy” that would “help those who have helped [them] get elected.” (Toledo Blade, 11/25/96)

By April of 1997, the commissioners were rescinding that policy in favor of a 'best-bid' policy with terms agreed to by both opponents and proponents of the original requirements.

From a May 4, 1997, Blade article, (Isenberg Says County Board Mishandled Decision on Bids):

Lucas County commissioners should have acted differently in agreeing on a now-rescinded policy on awarding contracts for construction projects, Sandy Isenberg, president of the board of commissioners, said.

"Shame on us because we didn't bring all the people together up front," she said during a taping of The Editors television program. "And we should have done that, and after the fact we did."

So the question now is this: why are the Commissioners even considering a policy they've rejected in the past? The fact that the item is still on the agenda and has not been defeated is troublesome.

As I've previously documented, there is no logic or validity to the claims offered in support of PLAs. Instead, they raise the costs of all projects, eliminate opportunity for a majority of workers (since 83% of the private sector is non-unionized) and cannot ensure promises of better quality work. Besides, they're 'not business friendly' and what we need most in this area are more businesses.

If you haven't already done so, please contact the commissioners and tell them to stop deferring this resolution and just defeat it!

Pete Gerken: pgerken@co.lucas.oh.us
Tina Skeldon Wozniak: twozniak@co.lucas.oh.us
Ben Konop: bkonop@co.lucas.oh.us
Phone number: 419-213-4500

Commissioners again defer project labor agreement vote

I've previously written about the push to institute Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) for all Lucas County contracts - and the fact that the commissioners deferred a vote on the measure until today.

Today, they deferred the resolution until Dec. 15.

Interestingly, The Blade's coverage of the commissioner meeting focuses solely on the appointment of a Skeldon family associate to the dog warden advisory committee.

Now I know they're really interested in getting Dog Warden Tom Skeldon out of office - they have been for years. But in terms of impact to the community, which would you say is more newsworthy: 1) appointing someone who worked on a relative's campaign to an ad hoc committee, or 2) a plan to require that all contractors (even non-union companies) doing business with Lucas County enter into a labor agreement for the duration of the county project?

Obviously, option #2 has a significant financial impact on the county and the taxpayer - as well as sending a strong negative message about doing business in our area.

But of course, the paper hasn't even mentioned this agenda item. They're too busy trying to bury the dog warden who's done nothing but follow the rules, laws and policies put into place by the politicians The Blade routinely supports.

Pay attention, Lucas County! You need to call or email your commissioners to make sure PLAs are never instituted in our county:

Pete Gerken: pgerken@co.lucas.oh.us
Tina Skeldon Wozniak: twozniak@co.lucas.oh.us
Ben Konop: bkonop@co.lucas.oh.us
Phone number: 419-213-4500

For more information about the negative impacts of PLAs, be sure to check out The Truth About PLAs website.

Commissioners delay vote on project labor agreements

Yesterday, I wrote about the proposed resolution to require project labor agreements (PLA) for all Lucas County work.

Today, the commissioners decided to defer the resolution until Dec. 1.

That means there's still time for you to weigh in on the negative impacts of this proposal.

Pete Gerken: pgerken@co.lucas.oh.us
Tina Skeldon Wozniak: twozniak@co.lucas.oh.us
Ben Konop: bkonop@co.lucas.oh.us
Phone number: 419-213-4500

This issue has also made it to TheUnionLabelBlog with an entry by my friend, Warner Todd Huston: Ohio’s Ben Konop Wants Kids to Starve so he can Give Gov’t Payoffs to Unions. WTH takes a different take on the idea, but comes to a terrific conclusion:

"This fool is just shifting the government money from the welfare office to the funds that pay for building projects. What’s the difference? Only the tiny mind of a Democrat can see the difference."

This is a business killing proposal that will do nothing but increase the cost of projects Lucas County government pays for. We all need to tell the commissioners to vote NO on December 1st.

'Not business friendly' Post #17 -You're going to have a union contract whether you want one or not!

Well, that's if Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop and the Northwest Ohio Building and Constructions Trades Council have their way.

Tomorrow the Commissioners have a resolution on their agenda titled: Incorporating Project Labor Agreements into Bidding Specifications for all County-Supported Projects.

Here's the summary:

Whereas this Board of County Commissioners is responsible for facilitating funds for social services, employers who contract to construct county-supported projects are effectively compensated with public dollars and should pay their workers enough so that those same workers might not also rely on taxpayer-funded social services. Applying project labor agreements on all county-supported construction projects, which will ensure workers on those projects are paid prevailing or union-negotiated wages, will also create more opportunities for our local working families, promote fair-bidding practices, protect area standards, avoid disruptions, delays and labor disputes, and create a higher level of workmanship on the aforementioned projects.

What does this really mean?

In a nutshell, if you're going to bid on a contract with the county, you're going to have to enter into a labor agreement with a local union for that specific project.

Talk about insanity and 'not business friendly'!

Additionally, the resolution has two lines - one for 'budget impact' and one for 'statutory authority' - where the costs to the county and the source of the authority for the resolution are cited. These two lines are blank for this resolution, so we have nothing to detail how much it will cost the county to implement, nor do we know if the commissioners even have the authority to institute such a provision.

Let's look at the 'assumptions' in the summary:

"...employers .... should pay their workers enough so that those same workers might not also rely on taxpayer-funded social services."

There are so many fallacies in this assumption, I'm not sure where to begin. So let's start with the basics. Employers should pay employees what they are worth in terms of the value of their labor. They should compensate employees based upon the work that is being done and how well the employee performs the assigned tasks.

But this resolution says employees should be paid based NOT upon those things, but based upon what the government has determined to be eligibility for certain hand-outs. This resolution states that employees should be paid so they make more than what the government determines is the maximum amount people can earn before they get such things as food stamps, Aid to Dependent Children, housing vouchers, heating vouchers, and a host of other hand-outs.

Of course, government has increased the amount of money you can earn and remain eligible. So does that mean that private employers must also increase their pay based upon a political decision designed to purchase votes?

Additionally, eligibility for many programs includes the number of dependents a person has. Should employers then base their pay on how many kids an employee has, even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the job the person is performing? And wouldn't an employer get into trouble for paying one woman more than another when they're doing the same job just because one has kids and the other doesn't?

Pay for workers should not be based upon some arbitrary factor established by government, especially when that factor (eligibility for 'social services') is completely unrelated to the labor being done.

Applying project labor agreements on all county-supported construction projects, which will ensure workers on those projects are paid prevailing or union-negotiated wages...

For most county projects, prevailing wages already apply. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find county projects under which prevailing wages are NOT applied. So this resolution will do nothing in that regard - though it sure does sound nice in the reso, doesn't it?

Prevailing wages are often based upon 'union-negotiated' wages - or at least incorporate those rates into the calculation, so to include the phrase 'union-negotiated wages' in the resolution is really just a duplication.

This is not just about wages, though that may be how it is advertised. No, this is about a host of other issues like binding arbitration, fringe benefits, no strike-no lockout, and all the other issues a labor agreement traditionally covers outside the scope of wages. This is about making sure all workers, whether they want to or not, are actually 'unionized' whenever they work for the county.

The resolution won't ensure the rate of payment for county projects, that's already being done under existing county policies in accordance with state law.

"...will also create more opportunities for our local working families ..."

It will? How? How does forcing union contracts upon workers create more opportunities for them? It doesn't. Employers and employees who have made a conscience choice to NOT be unionized will either be forced into a unionization contract or they won't get the county work. That's not 'creating opportunities.' That's punishing employers and employees who made a decision that unions and politicians don't like.

"...promote fair-bidding practices,..."

No - it won't promote fair-bidding practices. It endeavors to make unionized shops more attractive because their costs are traditionally higher than non-unionized shops. Fair bidding is to allow each company to put together the best proposal and to rate them on what they say they can do. What's even more fair to the taxpayers footing the bill is to select the less costly qualified bid.

But if not enough unionized workers are being hired because the costs of their contracts drive up the overhead of the company and result in a higher bid for the project, then politicians step in and try to spin a burdensome and unfair practice as somehow being more 'fair.'

I wish Commissioner Ben Konop, the sponsor of this resolution, was as concerned about taxpayer money as he is unionization of county workers. If he was, he'd never insist upon an arbitrary increase in costs just to satisfy a local union.

"...protect area standards..."

The only way this could be true is if unionized workers are inherently better at doing a job than non-unionized workers are. And we all know that 'unionization' is a far cry from a fair determiner of ability. In fact, many unions have reputations for protecting bad workers while non-unionized employers have a reputation of having an easier time in firing a non-performing employee.

Besides - this resolution doesn't mandate standards - it just mandates a union contract for a job.

And then there is this little phrase from the actual contract proposed to be signed if this resolution passes:

...protecting the area standards for wages and benefits realized through the process of collective bargaining by imposing union scale for all work covered by this Agreement.

Apparently, the 'standards' the unions are interested in are the ones for wages and benefits.

"...avoid disruptions, delays and labor disputes ..."

Well, I suppose since there is a no-strike/no lock-out clause in the agreement the resolution requires, this could be true. However, we've all seen labor disputes, delays and disruptions even when union contracts are involved, so there is no way this resolution can promise or ensure such.

"...create a higher level of workmanship on the aforementioned projects."

How, exactly, is a higher level of workmanship created? It doesn't say. In fact, this appears to be promotion of the fallacy that unionized workers are better skilled than their non-union counterparts. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that one person is more qualified to perform construction work simply because they're in a union.

The factors that relate to workmanship are training, experience, and ability. Simply having a union card doesn't ensure the skill of the individual, even if they've participated in union-sponsored training. In fact, there are plenty of training programs that are not union-sponsored that produce equally- or better-skilled individuals. The test is in the individual - not the card they carry in their wallet.

So, again, we have a statement that cannot be supported with fact and the proposed resolution contains no provision for guaranteeing the statement.

But the worst part of this is the fact that all workers will have to pay union dues to the union while employed on the county projects. Yes, that's right. This is a pay off to the unions to get them more money. As a condition of employment they must be a union member during the duration of the project. Section 3.4 of the proposed agreements states:

Upon being presented with a written authorization form by an employee covered by this Agreement, the Employer will deduct from the wages of such employee and remit to the Union all initiation fees, dues, and representation fees in accordance with the signed authorization.

There are other onerous provisions in the actual contract as well. If the employer doesn't make the mandated payments to the union for certain fringe benefits, the contract requires the county to withhold those amounts from any payment they'd be making to the company. The county would then pay the union directly. If the union negotiates other contracts with greater benefits while the project is on-going, those new terms of wages & benefits are applied to the county project - retroactively, if necessary. That means that costs for the project can never be known because, at any time, a union may engage in negotiations with other employers and any agreed-upon terms automatically apply to the county project as well.

There's also the standard union access clause that grants a union representative unescorted access to the work site at any time. They also get to designate stewards for the work.

Do these provisions make any sense to anyone but a union????

There is nothing in this resolution that will even remotely address the items it claims in the summary. All it will do is add to the cost of government projects by imposing unnecessary mandates on bidders. And with the county facing a $10 million deficit and planning to dip into the stabilization fund, is this really the time to increase the cost of projects?

In this economy, commissioners shouldn't do anything that adds to the cost of government, even under the guise of 'helping' 'working' families. I'm part of a 'working' family that is tired of footing the bill for preferential treatment for unions and other special interests.

You should read the entire resolution as well as the 'proposed contract' the resolution calls for.

And then you should do two things:

1) Call your commissioners and ask them who wrote the contract. I'd bet any amount of money that Ben Konop didn't - but that the union did.

2) Tell the commissioners that if they really want to destroy business and employment opportunities in the region - pass this resolution, for that's the outcome if they do.

Pete Gerken: pgerken@co.lucas.oh.us
Tina Skeldon Wozniak: twozniak@co.lucas.oh.us
Ben Konop: bkonop@co.lucas.oh.us
Phone number: 419-213-4500